Daniel William Alesi v. Walter E. Craven
446 F.2d 742
9th Cir.
1971
Check Treatment

*1 Metro-Goldwyn pins plaintiff Pictures and defend- it Sheldon v. tween supra, Corp., at “defend- from the use ants than is inevitable only jewel-encrusted use, forms both. all bee ants were entitled to gone before, plain- that had but even the “expression” “idea” and its When itself, if drew tiffs’ contribution copying inseparable, the “ex are thus general patterns; from it the more barred, pro pression” since will be is, they kept ‘expres- clear its tecting “expression” cir in such ” Converting sion.’ also Millworth See monopoly cumstances confer Corp. (2d Slifka, F.2d copyright owner free “idea” 1960). imposed and limitations of the conditions Selden, patent Baker v. law. The critical distinction between 99, 103, “expression” “idea” is difficult Co., Morrissey Procter & Gamble v., Judge candidly wrote, As Hand draw. (1st Cir. F.2d 678-679 675 “Obviously, principle can no stated' Co., 140 Ins. Pacific Mut. Life Crume v. gone beyond as to when an imitator has 1944). also See ‘idea,’ copying the and has its borrowed Beardsley, 253 Continental Co. Cas. ” ‘expression.’ Fabrics, Peter Pan Inc. 1958). (2d Cir. 705-706 Corp., v. Martin Weiner Affirmed. (2d 489 cases, At least in close may suspect, one the classifica may simply tion the court selects

the result reached rather than the rea view, son for it. In our the difference really degree Judge one of is Hand

suggested striking in his “abstraction”

formulation in Nichols v. Universal Pic Corp., (2d tures guiding ALESI, consideration Petitioner- Daniel William drawing Appellee, preservation is the line pro competition the balance between patent copy tection reflected in the CRAVEN,Respondent- Walter E. right laws. Appellant. basically What is at is the stake copyright monop extent of the owner’s States Court oly large activity how area of Ninth Circuit. —from Congress copy intend to allow owner exclude others? We production jeweled pins think the bee larger preserve private

is a than Con

gress pub intended to be set aside patent. jeweled

lic market without pin de

bee is therefore an “idea” that copy.

fendants were free to Plaintiff agree, any for it seems to disavows manufac

claim that defendants cannot jeweled pins and con ture sell bee only plaintiff’s particular de cedes that sign jeweled “expression” bee copy protected pin under its “idea” is right. noted, difficulty, as we have and its that on this record the “idea” indistinguish

.“expression” appear to be greater similarity

able. There is no be-

formed the for the conviction com- basis plained of. affirm. We

Appellee pos was convicted in 1958 of sessing narcotics and conviction was Cal.App. affirmed. In 1969 337 P.2d 838 petitioned court for a he corpus. writ of habeas hearing evidentiary An was held and peti- the district court determined that rights tioner’s constitutional were violat- significant particu- ed in a number of findings fact, lars. In its recited: “Viewing whole, the matter as a exceptional finds that this is remedy case wherein need for the corpus of habeas to correct a miscar- riage justice, mini- as measured standards, mal constitutional apparent. found, “As hereinafter the court petitioner’s determined that has rights violated in a stitutional were significant particulars. number selecting any more as one or Without controlling, peti- finds that the court law, process tioner was denied contrary Amend- to the Fourteenth full, ment, fair receive a and hearing adequate Califor- Millar, Jr., Deputy Frederick R. proceedings in violation nia criminal (argued), James, Gen. William rights.” of his constitutional Atty. Gen., Younger, Atty. Evelle J. findings, not- specific the court In its Cal., respondent- Angeles, Los adequate appellee did not have ed that appellant. counsel, appellate he ar- (argued), Norman Elliott John W. suspi- rested without warrant Cal., petition- McClure, Angeles, Los supplied after information was cion er-appellee. name informant whose an unidentified DUNIWAY, Before WRIGHT established, were not Judges. hearsay state- informants’ ments were used substantive against WRIGHT, him. Circuit EUGENE Judge: special men- made The district court booking room an incident in the tion of This is an on behalf of county jail. rubber container judgment of State of California from a extracted from heroin granted peti- the district court throat. corpus. That for writ of habeas hearing judge, oral tes- petitioner-appellee after directed that days timony police involved officers released within 60 unless incident, their conduct proceed- found that authorities instituted shall have charge ings retry conduct sufficient him to “amount to seemed attempting under the rule ‘shock the conscience’ pellee destroying In of Rochin v. 342 U.S. 165 from the evidence. [72 (1952).” circumstances, these 183] the actions officers measured an entire- must be examining After the record we cannot ly v. Har- different rule. United States findings clearly erro- rison, U.S.App.D.C. *3 139 judgment of the neous. The district Caldera, 1328 v. United States court is affirmed. (9th 152, Cir. 153 Beyond that, attorneys ap- the for the Judge (dissent- pellee during the of course ing) : trial and could well have decided principal The issue us is the before existing there that neither record inadequacy appellee’s asserted of counsel applicable. Martinez Rochin nor appeal, the Peo state Indeed, in had counsel could well have ple Cal.App.2d 758, v. 169 P. 337 456, mind, Dixon, People v. 46 Cal.2d (1959). 2d 838 The held district (1956), aft- 296 P.2d a case decided 557 emphasize that failure the counsel’s to and, Martinez, prior er trial to alleged “choking” illegality of the inci There, the in the California courts. dent, by the the which officers obtained may court an use such held that officer heroin, bindle of the demonstrated that Only necessary. reasonably force as is attorney incompetent appel was so that prevent to destruc- force the deprived process. lee was of by origi- tion the is disclosed judge felt decision the Cali courts, nal record the California before Martinez, fornia in v. us. now before 54, (1954), Cal.App.2d 130 P.2d 26 278 Keeping totality of circumstances point so was in that counsel’s mind, I am before the court state failure to to raise the amounted issue there is forced to the conclusion that incompetence magni of constitutional original nothing in the conduct thought tude. He also that Rochin v. failing attorneys, the “chok to raise 342 72 ing” suggest they (1952), “ required 96 L.Ed. 183 counsel * * * incompetent to make so point. disagree. to raise the I justice’ mockery the trial or a ‘a farce all, ”, by First we look to the must standard which we appel- record before the state trial to measure their United States conduct. courts, 1971); (9th late rather Cox, than to the one made Cir. v. 88 439 physical Musgrove Eyman, (9th the district ac- 1235 court. The tivity Eyman, 1971); F. the officers as shown Cir. Kruchten v. record, 1969). Here, (9th that matter implied record, emphasize the district does the basic proach attorney employed authority the brutal tactics of an to conduct swpra. Martinez, the officers in Besides he sees fit. defense in manner as such that, Cox, supra; Eaton v. court should have United States (9th dignity States, elevated Martinez to the of fed- United dogma. Rochin, 1971); Nelson, 430 F.2d eral constitutional Ias Watkins (9th it, authority read is no what was said in Martinez. Next, us does not record before support Factually, conclusion Martinez Rochin are court’s clearly distinguishable. case There, in the instant was the offi- the arrest making solely cers were and throat made the information mouth es- search informant was not for what believed to be whose arresting had in- Here, traband. officer the officers knew that tablished. bindle, appellee unaer appellee attempt- formation that ing drugs. The of- swallow, narcotic the influence of contained heroin and subsequently informa verified this ficer appel through his observations speech, appearance and behavior. lee’s may Any have the officer reliance which justifi placed upon information was had verified. after its details been

able States, F.2d 923 v. United Gilbert v. Har States L. ris, 91 S.Ct. Ed.2d 723 taking possession Appellee’s actions room, booking coupled

of heroin in the attempts its seizure

with his unchallenged police, and other *4 prove the

evidence, sufficient he stands convicted.

crime of which

Any possible the hear- consideration of infor- statements of the mants, they presented a constitu- even beyond a be harmless

tional would teachings doubt within the Harrington California, L.Ed.2d S.Ct. (1969) Chapman L.Ed.2d 705

U.S. points mentioned

Other importance. re- are of no judgment.

verse the CORPORATION,

CHARED Transferee the British-American Products Oil Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, America, UNITED STATES of Defendant-Appellee. Dallas, Berry, Bullion, Buford W. P. J. Tex., plaintiff-appellant. Atty., Mahon, Martha Eldon B. U.S. United States Court of Tex., Dallas, Atty., Stroud, Asst. Joe U.S. Fifth Circuit. Depart Atty., Stanley Krysa, Trial F. D.C., Washington, Justice, John ment of Department of Jones, Atty., U.S. O. Tax Tex., M. Justice, Worth, Johnnie Fort Walters, Ann Attys., Jackson, Belanger, Lee D.C., Washington, Justice, Dept. of